I believe infant baptism is predicated on the presumption that the parents are supplying the “I Believe” in place of the infant, correct? That might not be perfectly accurate and I would welcome any fine-tuning on that.

I guess this is a judgment call on the part of the priest/bishop.

Another thread in another forum here ( forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=892038 ) prompted me to wonder in a more general way if this might not be a teachable moment and an opportunity for me to better understand the thinking behind infant baptism.

Another aspect of this: What is the danger to the infant if they are baptized and NOT brought up in the faith? Since baptism, as I understand it, forever changes the soul, is a baptized soul who then rejects the faith worse off than somebody who was never baptized? I have long wondered about this.

Infant baptism of course is predicated upon bringing the child into the family of Faith and raising him in the Faith. I think you are correct that the parent’s declaration of Faith stands in for the child’s. The Church requires that there be a well founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic Faith.

It’s also true that Baptism imparts an indelible mark on the soul, making the person a child of God, imparting sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

One would not wish to bring a child into the world and then fail to nourish him or her; neither should one bring a child into the family of God without nourishing him in the Faith.

I think that the duties of parents in such cases will need to be emphasized even more.

Infant baptism can only be licitly performed if there is the belief that the child would be raised in the teachings of the Church. If there isn’t one, the child shouldn’t be baptized. Needless to say, there’s a lot of prudential judgement on this matter, but a same-sex couple would make it highly problematic.

I believe infant baptism is predicated on the presumption that the parents are supplying the “I Believe” in place of the infant, correct? That might not be perfectly accurate and I would welcome any fine-tuning on that.

I guess this is a judgment call on the part of the priest/bishop.

Another thread in another forum here ( forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=892038 ) prompted me to wonder in a more general way if this might not be a teachable moment and an opportunity for me to better understand the thinking behind infant baptism.

Another aspect of this: What is the danger to the infant if they are baptized and NOT brought up in the faith? Since baptism, as I understand it, forever changes the soul, is a baptized soul who then rejects the faith worse off than somebody who was never baptized? I have long wondered about this.

This just might be the type of thing that is going to be addressed at the holy father’s family synod in October. I can’t wait!

I would suggest that the ‘parents’ not be present, only the godfather and the godmother. The so called parents cannot profess their faith while being in a state of mortal sin, and not wanting to repent and change their lives. The child should be baptized and entrusted to the care of God, his grace and to the diligent care of the godfather and godmother.
It is a difficult question nowadays. We know that child baptism has always been present in the Church, but the child was baptized, either with the entire family, or entrusted to a godfather. Jesus said to teach and baptize. So, the two go together. There must be someone to attend to the faith of the child. If there is none to feed him the faith, then it is questionable.
I would say: it’s easier to convert a pagan to Catholicism, then a Catholic.

50yroldTOBfan. The people presenting the infant for Baptism must have the “I believe” part (as you stated), but there must be more.

There should be a “founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.”

If a couple or a group (threesome,foursome, or some other open deviant practice etc.)

“Cassandra White of Northern Indiana has petitioned her local government to allow her to marry her dog Brutus. White has sent several letters to gay rights activists to help her lead the march to stop discrimination against her . . .White has also received support from ‘Freedom To Marry Our Pets Society” who plan to organize a protest in Washington to change definition of marriage to include pets” see here and also for that matter, here]

is living in a relationship that includes sodomy, this may be an appropriate reason to delay baptism of the infant.

The Church will be the arbiter upon if and what conditions need to be met for these unfortunate conditions and if there is a “founded hope” to “be brought up in the Catholic religion” for these poor infants involved with this social experiment we are having foisted upon us.

An exception of course is if the infant is in an overt “danger of death”.

Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

[INDENT]
§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.[/INDENT]